Mithilesh Gohiwar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Arbitration | Patna HC (2025)

Mithilesh Gohiwar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Arbitration | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; writ petition disposed of with the observation that if the petitioner prefers a petition (per State counsel, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) before the competent Civil Court within eight weeks, the concerned Court shall consider and dispose of the limitation petition in light of the writ's pendency since 2018.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.06.2018 of the Arbitrator Cum Additional Collector, Madhubani in Case No. 78/2016-2017 should be set aside and the petitioner paid compensation for 0.08 decimals of land at the commercial rate along with the cost of the building and interest. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The Court found the petitioner's grievance seems valid and directed that if such a petition is preferred within the next eight weeks, the concerned Court shall take up the limitation petition and dispose of it taking into account that the writ petition had been pending before this Court since the year 2018.

Key takeaways

The petitioner's grievance regarding the acquisition compensation appears valid, and a petition in that regard is to be preferred within the next eight weeks.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rajiv Roy, J.), by oral order dated 14-10-2025, disposed of CWJC No.21115 of 2018 filed by Mithilesh Gohiwar seeking certiorari against the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the Arbitrator Cum Additional Collector, Madhubani (Land Acquisition) in Case No. 78/2016-2017, and directions to declare his 0.08 decimals of land (Khata No. 2389, Khesra No. 10567, Thana No. 14, Mauza Usrahi Deodha), acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 04/2014-2015 for widening of a National Highway (NHAI) in Madhubani, as commercial land and to pay compensation at the commercial rate with building cost and interest, the land having been treated as agricultural. Learned State counsel submitted that the remedy lies under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the competent Civil Court; learned counsel for the petitioner agreed to approach the concerned Court, citing delay due to pendency before the High Court. Holding the grievance seemingly valid, the Court directed that if such a petition is preferred within eight weeks, the concerned Court shall take up the limitation petition and dispose of it taking into account that the writ petition had been pending since 2018; with this observation the writ petition was disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21115 of 2018

======================================================

Mithilesh Gohiwar Son of Late Rajdeo Golhiwar Resident of Village-Usrahi P.S. Deodha,Distt.-Madhubani

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar and Ors

The District Magistrate cum Collector,Madhubani

Additional Collector cum Arbitrator,Madhubnani

The Competent Authority cum Land Acquisition Officer,Madhubani

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan -Sc25 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

2 14-10-2025 Heard the parties.

The present writ petition has been preferred for the

following relief(s):-

I) Certiorari:-For Setting of aside of order dated 28.06.2018 passed by Arbitrator Cum Additional Collector, Madhubani (Land Acquisition) in Case No. 78/2016-2017.

II) be An appropriate direction be issued declaring the lands appertaining to Khata No. 2389 Khesra No. 10567, Thana No. 14 situated at Mauza Usrahi Deodha Area 0.08 decimals is Commercial Land which has been acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 04/2014-2015.

III) An appropriate direction be

Patna High Court CWJC No.21115 of 2018(2) dt.14-10-2025 2/3

issued directing the Respondents to pay compensation for acquisition of 0.08 decimals land through Case No. 4/2014-15 appertaining to Khata No. 2389 Khesra No. 10567, situated in Mauza Usrahi Deodha at the commercial rate along with cost of the building standing thereon with interest thereon.

IV) Any other appropriate writ or direction, may be issued which may be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The land of the petitioner was taken for the development of widening of National Highway Authority of India in the district of Madhubani, the claim is that treating the land to be agriculture, an offer of payment was made.

Learned State counsel submits that if the petitioner has any grievance, the remedy lies under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the competent Civil Court

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be approaching the concerned Court but there has been delay as he was agitating the matter before Patna High Court.

The grievance seems to be valid, if such a petition is preferred in next eight weeks by the petitioner, the concerned

Patna High Court CWJC No.21115 of 2018(2) dt.14-10-2025 3/3

Court shall take up the limitation petition and dispose it of taking into account the fact that since the year 2018, the writ petition was pending before this Court.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is

disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J)

Raj Ranjan/- U T